So what have Educational Guru, Sir Ken Robinson, and the Führer, Chancellor Adolf Hitler, got in common? Very little I guess. But here at Toxic Drums we like the bizarre, the strange and the unexpected. This weird juxtaposition of personas conjures all sorts of interesting thoughts and imaginings. It's a kind of visual oxymoron I guess. The question that comes to mind is which one's the oxy?

I was going to dedicate a page to Sir Ken and was looking for a suitable image. On looking at this one of Ken, of course, it reminded me of Hitler's famous salute. I just couldn't resist putting the two images together. It amuses me. Creative, artistic Hitler with his nice shiny pink uniform on the right and the imposing figure of Sir Ken with a fascist salute on the left. Sir Ken is a compassionate, thoughtful, considerate educationalist on the left whilst Uncle Adolf was a callous, bigoted, inconsiderate dictator on the right. All so thought provoking. It struck me that other incongruous juxtapositions might be made like Osama Bin Laden and the Pope. Both very religious. Both significant world figures. Both worshiped by their followers. Hang on I'm having difficulty finding the differences. Oh one is bowed down to by the Western World and the other is not. Hmm struggling a little here. Apparently Osama is abusive to his children but then the Pope's henchmen are abusive to other people's children. Now there's a difference!

The thing is that I have read some of Joseph Alois Ratzinger's philosophy and the man is clearly very intelligent and very thoughtful. If he were living in my circumstances and writing such stuff it would be regarded as a person's thoughts and opinions. But The Pope is an office and a very significant and influential one. Although the Roman Catholic Church has a lot of good ideas it does not mean that everything it does is acceptable. To criticise the unacceptable and to question any part of it is reasonable. To suggest otherwise is to fall into the category in which the Western world has plumped Osama. Ratzinger himself made the point back in 1984 that there is a fundamental difference between personal dissent and the dissent of a specialist theologian. Dissent is necessary. But to represent personal dissent as the consensus of the group against which the dissent is aimed is self evidently erroneous and can lead to serious problems. So the Pope is representing
a consensus and that group, called the Church, has got some very serious problems.

The problem with the Pope is that a person, namely Joseph, has subjugated himself to the role. The role is representative of the consensus of the church. The church is clear in its view that lording it over other people, living in ludicrous wealth, whilst billions of real people don't have enough to eat, is not on. Although this tragic paradox presents itself the defence springs to mind that 'someone' has to lead the church and better a kind hearted and intelligent man than some other individual with less scruples who might be seen wearing a pink uniform somewhere on this page. But the error remains. It may be the lesser of two evils but that is still evil and to refrain from criticising it would be to comply with the current oppressor. A good leader welcomes criticism. So thank you Mr Pope for affording me that liberty. Now start behaving yourself and do something for real to stop this cascading oppression that is sending the world to hell.